Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The proliferation of new translations and the usage of such translations by brethren have caused us to become more aware of variant readings of the Greek manuscripts than in previous years. Those who have studied 1 John 5:7-8 in a Bible class recently have probably noticed the difference in the reading of the King James Version and that of most later translations; in case you have not noticed the different readings, I will reproduce the reading of the King James Version (AV) and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

AV

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear record in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

NASB

For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The italicized section in the AV is not found in the NASB or any other recent translation, except in a marginal note to indicate that it is not found in the best manuscripts of the New Testament.

However, let us examine this verse to see how it came to be in our Bible. In a preliminary note, let me make these following observations:

1. The original manuscripts were inspired of God. Let us remember that the original manuscripts were what were inspired of God. We are not obligated to defend as inspired any errors which have crept into the text of the New Testament through transmission. Hence, one is not denying the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures when he examines the textual evidence to discover whether or not a given reading was in the original documents.

2. The text of the New Testament is reliable. Neither am I trying to undermine one’s confidence in the texts of the New Testament in this article. The uniform testimony of all textual critics is that the texts of the New Testament are completely reliable. Typical of such comments are those reproduced below by the mentioned textual scholars:

In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed. Much too of the variation which it is necessary to record has only an antiquarian interest, except in so far as it supplies evidence as to the history of textual transmission, or as to the characteristics of some document or group of documents. The whole area of variation between readings that have ever been admitted, or are likely to be ever admitted, into any printed texts is comparatively small; and a large part of it is due merely to differences between the early uncritical editions and the texts formed within the last half-century with the help of the priceless documentary evidence brought to light in recent times. A small fraction of the gross residue of disputed words alone remains after the application of the improved methods of criticism won from the experience of nearly two centuries of investigation and discussion. If comparative trivialities, such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like, are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament (Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, pp. 564-565).

Similar statements affirming the reliability of the New Testament documents can be found in any standard reference book on the subject! Hence, the documents of the New Testament can be trusted as relaying to us a good copy of the original document.

This statement, however, does not deny that there are some verses which need to be examined as to the correct reading of the text or even whether or not they belong to the text. “Only 400 or so of the 150,000 variants materially affect the sense, and of these perhaps 50 are of real significance. But no essential teaching of the New Testament is greatly affected by them” (Ira Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, p. 222). Our examination of 1 John 5:7-8 is unique in that it is one of the major textual variants in the New Testament.

3. The discovery of manuscripts has assisted textual criticism. The last two hundred years have brought to light many major texts of the New Testament to be used in textual criticism. All of the major texts used in reconstructing the original text have been discovered since the AV of 1611 was printed, hence, the contribution of the science of textual criticism with a methodology of the critical text have all come since the AV was released. Every new papyrus manuscript unearthed or discovered assists us in producing a more accurate copy of the New Testament.

Two Different Greek Texts

Perhaps one is wondering why these two readings appear in 1 John 5:7-8. The answer is that the AV was based on one Greek text known as the Textus Receptus and the NASB (and all later translations) are based on a critical text (the text usually followed is the Westcott and Hort text with variations being noted). The text used by the AV was called the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was compiled by Erasmus and printed in 1516. Whereas the modern critical text is the base of the examination of literally thousands of manuscripts, Erasmus’ text was based on only eight or nine Greek manuscripts (of the Byzantine family of texts). In the early editions of Erasmus’ work, the reading which appears more nearly resembles that of the critical text than that of the AV. For this, his text was criticized. We shall see later what happened. First, however, let us detail the differences in the two texts and the texts supporting each reading.

The AV is based on this Greek text: marturountes en to hourano, ho pater ho logos kai to hagion pneuma, kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin. kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en to ge, to pneuma kai to hudor kai to haima (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one”). This Greek text is found in the following documents:

61 – a sixteenth century minuscule text

629 – a fourteenth century minuscule text

88 – the reading appears in the margin of this twelfth century text

429 – the reading appears in the margin of this 14-15 century text

636 – a fifteenth century minuscule text

918 – a sixteenth century minuscule text

221 – the reading appears in the margin of this tenth century text

One notices that this reading is supported by very late texts; none of the major uncial or papyrus texts support this reading.

On the other hand, the critical text behind the NASB reading is as follows: hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes, to pneuma kai to hudor kai to haima, kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin “For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement”). This textual reading is supported by too many texts to be mentioned; however, the major texts supporting it are as follows:

Aleph – a fourth century uncial text

A – Alexandrinus is a fifth century uncial text

B – Vaticanus is a fourth century uncial text

048 – a fifth century uncial text

In addition to these major texts, numbers of minuscule texts from the ninth century on read the same way; here are a few of them: 81, 88, 104, 181, 326, 330, 436, 451, 614, 630, 945, 1241, 1505, 1739, 1877, 1881, 2127, 2412, 2492, 2495, etc.

The textual support for the critical text is so overwhelmingly against that of the Textus Receptus that virtually no one questions but that the AV reflects an insertion into the holy text. The reading receives an “A” rating on a scale which uses “A” to signify that the text is virtually certain.

How did the reading ever get into the AV in the first place? That is a rather interesting story in itself. The first two editions of Erasmus’ text (which later came to be known as the Textus Receptus) did not contain the reading.

Among the criticisms levelled at Erasmus one of the most serious appeared to be the charge of Stunica, one of the editors of Ximenes’ Complutensian Polygot, that his text lacked part of the final chapter of 1 John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning `the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth’ (1 John v. 7-8, King James version). Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found – or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him . . .

. . . The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of 1 John, whence it was taken into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifth century. The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate before about 800 A.D. (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101-102).

Apparently, this text was prepared especially for Erasmus. Known as manuscript 61 (Ms. 61), this manuscript was described by Metzger as follows:

This manuscript of the entire New Testament, dating from the late fifteeneth or early sixteenth century, now at Trinity College, Dublin, has more importance historically than intrinsically. It is the first Greek manuscript discovered which contains the passage relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses (I John v. 7-8). It was on the basis of this single, late witness that Erasmus was compelled to insert this certainly spurious passage into the text of 1 John. The manuscript, which is remarkably fresh and clean throughout (except for the two pages containing 1 John v, which are soiled from repeated examination of this passage), gives every appearance of having been produced expressly for the purpose of confuting Erasmus (Ibid., p. 62).

However, because this text was produced, Erasmus included the reading in the third edition of his Greek text which was the text used for translating the AV. In this manner, the passage was included in the King James Version of the Bible. In the Companion To The Revised Version of the English New Testament, Alexander Roberts commented, “No defender of the genuineness of 1 John (5: 7, 8), will probably arise in the future. The controversy regarding the passage is finished, and will never be renewed” (p. 71).

An Accurate Text

The thousands of Greek manuscripts, both uncial and minuscule, allow us to examine the text of the New Testament in greater detail than any other ancient book can be examined. Texts from distinctly different families of manuscripts exist which make it possible for us to examine exactly what the original documents state. With no exceptions, the textual critics are universally willing to admit that the text of the New Testament is extremely well preserved and that we can rest assured that we have an accurate copy of the documents as they came from the pens of the inspired men. Peter said, “. . . the word of the Lord endureth for ever” (1 Pet. 1:25); modern textual critics are compelled to admit that it has at least endured to this present time.

Can We Still Believe In Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Someone else might be asking whether or not we can still believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit if 1 John 5:7-8 does not really belong in our New Testaments. We most assuredly can. The following passages demonstrate that other New Testament passages, which are not textually suspect, teach the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; read them for yourself.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28:19).

But when the Comforter (the Holy Spirit-mw) is come, whom I (Jesus-mw) will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me (Jn. 14:26).

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and to a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matt. 3:16-17).

Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me (Rom. 15:30).

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen (2 Cor. 13:14).

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Eph. 4:4-6).

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will (Heb. 2:3-4).

For through him (Jesus-mw) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father (Eph. 2:18).

. . . how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power . . . . (Acts 10:38).

There are several other passages which could be cited to demonstrate that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit compose the Godhead; however, these are sufficient to demonstrate that admitting that 1 John 5:7-8 are not in the text of the Scripture (as they appear in the AV) will not alter any doctrines which we are presently teaching. We simply must go to other texts to prove this for this text was invented by Catholics to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

QUESTIONS

1. Compare the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-8 with at least five other translations, including if possible the following versions: American Standard Version (1901), Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, and New International Version.
2. What do scholars say about the state of preservation of the text of the New Testament? Are the -New Testament documents reliable?
3. What did God say about preserving of the text of Scripture?
4. What is the Textus Receptus? On how many Greek texts was it based?
5. What is the critical text of Wescott and Hart? On how many texts approximately is it based?
6. What are the dates of the Greek manuscripts which support the reading of the AV in 1 John 5:7-8?
7. What are the dates of the Greek manuscripts which support the reading of the NASB in 1 John 5:7-8?
8. What is important about Ms. 61?
9. Cite passages to show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit compose the Godhead.

Guardian of Truth XXV: 14, pp. 216-218
April 2, 1981

By Irven Lee

It is easy to show by the Bible that life is in the Son of God, but for us to be blessed by this knowledge we must give more than lip service to this truth. We are to wake up to the fact that our hope of glory is in Christ so that we will demonstrate by the things we say and do that we recognize Christ as our prophet, priest, and king. Nominal members of the church may say that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man can go to the Father except by Him (John 14:6). Faithful members of the church so live that the world can realize that they understand that life is in the Son. They keep His commandments, they wear His name, they have fellowship in His suffering, and they are not ashamed to contend earnestly for the faith which He taught.

How can we know that we have the proper faith in and love for the Father and the Son? “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:1-3). This faith that brings about the new birth is not too dead to act. It has been perfected by works of obedience. “Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.” (Read James 2:17-26).

The first three verses of 1 John 5 mention both faith and love as well as the commandments of God. “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” Love that is in deed and in truth is acceptable (1 John 3:18, 19), but that which is only in word is not genuine. It takes obedience to perfect the faith, and it takes obedience to demonstrate the reality of our love. These works do not minimize the faith and love, for without them the obedience would not save. Keeping the commandments that are in the Bible would not save us if there were no living Savior. Without faith it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6). He that believeth not shall be damned (Mk. 16:16). The faith and works would not suffice if we have not love (1 Cor. 13:1-3). If there is the living faith and the genuine love, the works will follow as night the day, and those who do their part in these matters will find life in the Son. God is no respecter of persons, but He is a respecter of character. One of any race or social class or economic standing can, through faith and love and the obedience they motivate, find eternal life as a prize or gift. (See Romans 6:23; Phil. 3:14; 2 Tim. 4:8).

Faith is a powerful force that can overcome or conquer the world. It includes hope as an essential part of it (Heb. 11:1). “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for ‘we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 John 3:2, 3). The faith that overcomes does so by providing the hope that will cause a man to purify himself, and this is the desire of the Lord. He “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:11-14).

Think of the passages to which we have just referred as we read more from 1 John 5. “Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” (vv. 4, 5). Christ takes those who have purified themselves by overcoming the world to be His own peculiar possession, to share with Him the inheritance of the Father. It is the unfeigned faith and the living hope it provides that give man the motive to purify himself. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever” (1 John 2:15-17).

He that overcomes the world is the one that does the will of God rather than living by lust. If a man is without faith, he is without hope and without God in the world (Eph. 2:12). The unbeliever is left with nothing but the world. There is no power given him to overcome the world. It will be shown at the last day that the population of this generation and all others will be divided into two groups. They will be placed on the right hand and on the left (Matt. 25:31-46). Who is to inherit life? Those who have been good and faithful servants are those who are full of faith. Faith is the victory. God adds to the church, which is His family, such as should be saved (Acts 2:47; 1 Tim. 3:15). They then are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:16, 17). If we are His house, we are His family or His children. To think that in Christ we can have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins, should fill us with love and gratitude (Eph. 1:7). We love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). How could we over emphasize the abiding faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13)?

“Who then can be saved?” Do you remember who said this, and do you remember the context? Recall this and you will have the level of thinking that is all too common among us. This is a question asked by the disciples of the Lord in connection with some remarks He made after the rich young ruler had come and gone. “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying; Who then can be saved?” (Matt. 19:23-25). Today the rich man can buy the car or house he wants. He can travel far and wide. What is there that he cannot do? He cannot buy his way into heaven. Many may be “exceedingly. amazed” at that, but life is in the Son of God and not in one’s wealth. In fact, it is very, very hard for the rich man to humble himself enough to avoid trusting his riches rather than God. He, along with the crowd, may be “exceedingly amazed” to know that he is wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked (see Rev. 3:17). He might answer, “Who? Me?” if he were told that he is in special danger (read 1 Tim. 6:17-19; James 2:1-9). The man of wealth is inclined to feel that he is rich and in need of nothing. The rest of us are inclined to give him the good seat, and possibly call him an elder soon if we can ever get him immersed.

Many problems that have come to the church have come through our undue reverence for the unconverted prominent man. He is not likely to realize that God’s ways are as high above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. He may not realize that there is a way that seems right to man but ends in death. His money may be filthy lucre with rust from lack of use because of his selfishness and lack of regard for those who have made him wealthy. It is unfeigned faith which works by love that brings us to Christ where life is. Can we avoid the love of money and the deadly results of this love? Let us remember that life is in His Son so that we will set our affections on things above where Christ is. Treasures in heaven will not be stolen or contaminated by moth or rust. Faith brings the hope that will cause us to purify ourselves and have the patience to wait for the crown of righteousness. The incorruptible prize is reserved in heaven for those who are kept by faith.

Prayers that are made for a pretense, sitting in chief seats, or walking about in conspicuous robes hoping to be addressed with special titles will not bring us to heaven. The man of pride who was thankful that he was not like the publican was not as well off as the publican who humbled himself before God. Life is in the Son and not in prestige and the praise of men. The Lord does not go in for mere outward appearances. The faith that overcomes the world and the love that motivates one to keep the commandments will do what money and the praise of men cannot do. Christ is the door, and those who would seek to enter some other way are as thieves and robbers.

The Christ said “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). God publicly identified Jesus as His Son in whom He was well pleased. The unbeliever is in effect calling God a liar. Such an unbeliever cannot have life regardless of what else he may have. At death, he will leave all that this world has given during his entire stay in the flesh. That is when he will need faith, hope, and love. All unrighteousness is sin, and the true Christian does not continue in sin. Beware because this wicked old world lies in sin, but we have evidence to believe and the power to understand God’s will, so that we can be in Christ and know that we are in Him. Being born of God includes the fact that we have overcome the world.

John 5 tells us plainly that life is a gift from God and that this gift is in the Son. “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the son of God hath not life” (vs. 11, 12). The truth is just that simple. He will listen to His children who keep His commandments and pray in harmony with His will. Such people are rich toward God. They have precious faith now and the hope of eternal life. The true riches are for them through Christ.

QUESTIONS

1. How can Christians show that they believe that life is in Christ?
2. Find verses in other books of the New Testament that mention great spiritual blessings that are in Christ.
3. Is there some way that we have of knowing that we are redeemed?
4. 1 John 5 mentions prayers that are answered. What condition or conditions are listed in this chapter for acceptable prayer?
5. Point out statements in this chapter that show that such things as faith, love, keeping His commandments, etc., are related to our being acceptable to God.
6. Find one verse that makes it very clear that eternal life is in Christ.
7. 1 John 3:4 teaches that “sin is a transgression of the law.” Can you find a similar statement in 1 John 5?
8. May one correctly claim that he loves God if he does not keep His commandments?
9. Note the teaching in 1 John 5:1 concerning those who believe in Christ and love God. Whom else do they love?
10. Does 1 John 5:18 teach that if one is born of God and does not continue in sin, he is kept by God so that the wicked one will not harm him?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 14, pp. 214-215
April 2, 1981

By O. C. Birdwell, Jr.

The first six verses of chapter four seem to be set apart from the rest of the chapter. These first verses are introduced by the last verse of chapter 3 which says, “And hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he gave us.” This presents a question and a problem to which John, by inspiration, feels the need to supply the answer. How could one, amidst so many false spirits and false prophets, know the Spirit of God? With this question at hand, John pauses in his discussion of faith, love, and keeping the Lord’s commandments to present the answer. In this discussion of the fourth chapter, primary attention will be given to the charge “Prove the Spirits.”

The presence of Jesus with the apostles was a settled matter. He had promised the Spirit. Now the Spirit had come and was providing that which had been promised. By this evidence they knew that Christ was with them.

The apostles had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in keeping with the promise from Jesus (Acts 1:5; 2:1-4). The Spirit came to the apostles as a Comforter (Jn. 14:16); to teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had. taught (Jn. 14:26); to bear witness of Jesus (Jn. 15:26); to convict the world in respect of sin (Jn. 16:8); to guide the apostles into all truth (Jn. 16:13); to declare unto the apostles the things that were to come (Jn. 16:13); and to glorify Jesus (Jn. 16:14). What the Spirit taught was from Jesus and the Father (Jn. 16:15, 16).

“Believe Not Every Spirit” (v: 1)

The writer is quick to warn people not to believe every spirit that is in the world. There are false spirits as well as the true Spirit. Under consideration is the contrast and conflict between the two kinds of spirits and the method by which the people could make a distinction. There is a need to make such a distinction. It involves truth and error, right and wrong, salvation and condemnation.

In order to justify believing every spirit and practicing any religious doctrine, some would compare religion to such material things as automobiles and refrigerators. They say that any of the many brands will get the job done. This analogy and comparison with religion will not hold up. Most any make of automobile will do a fair job of taking one where he needs to go. Any brand of refrigerator will provide ice and adequate temperature to preserve food. Only the religion of Jesus Christ, however, will provide the eternal salvation that the soul of man needs. Everything else is counterfeit and false. Jesus teaches that there are only two ways. One is a broad way that leadeth to destruction; the other is strait (difficult) and leads unto life (Matt. 7:13, 14).

“It seems that in this world there is no truth without its counterfeit, nor good wheat of God unmixed with tares. Christ is mimicked by antichrist; the Spirit of God is mocked by lying spirits and the prophets of truth are counterworked by `many false prophets’ which `have gone out into the world’ ” (Findlay, Fellowship in the Life Eternal, p. 311).

The warning, “Believe not every spirit,” should be preached and heeded today.

“But Prove the Spirits”

The alternative to believing every spirit is proving the spirits. We are, therefore, instructed to “prove the spirits.” There is, however, a present attitude at work in the hearts and lives of many religionists which runs contrary to this charge. Some would have us believe that nothing is false if the teacher is honest and sincere. Others would even hold the notion that if one is in the family of God all he need do is, apart from New Testament obedience, place his trust in Jesus. Believing false doctrine would not endanger his salvation. John did not teach this position. He said, “Prove the spirits.”

The need for such trying of the spirits is clearly shown in the account of Saul of Tarsus. We need to learn a lesson from Saul. He lived in all good conscience (Acts 23:1). This was before as well as after his conversion. Yet, while his conscience was clear he “beyond measure . . . persecuted the church of God” (Gal. 1:13). He speaks of his being at that time “chief” of sinners (1 Tim. 1:15). He believed the wrong spirit. He accepted the wrong teaching. He was sincere, but wrong. He needed to “prove the spirits.”

The idea that certain things are to be tried or proven is rather common in scripture. Notice things that are to be proven. (1) “Try your own selves, whether ye are in the faith” (2 Cor. 15:5). Paul also affirms that he was approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, therefore, he did not strive to please men, “but God who proveth our hearts” (1 Thess. 2:4). (2) “But let each man prove his own work, and then shall he have his glorying in regard of himself alone, and not of his neighbor” (Gal. 6:4). (3) “Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations; knowing that the proving of your faith worketh patience” (James 1:2, 3). (4) “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Since we are charged to try self, work, faith, and all things, is it surprising that John tells us to “prove the spirits”?

“False Prophets are Gone Out”

The early Christians were soon to deal with false prophets. Jesus foretold their existence and activity during the period preceeding the destruction of Jerusalem. He said, “And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray” (Matt. 24:11). In verse 24 of the same chapter he said, “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”

John probably wrote the statement which we are now considering after the Jerusalem destruction. The false prophets had not ceased their work. If anything, they became more prevelant. At the late date of John’s writing most, if not all, the apostles except John, were dead. Spiritual gifts by the laying on of the apostles hands were decreasing and disappearing. It was a time ripe for false spirits and prophets. “In such a situation, the gnostic heresy might pass as another manifestation of the spirit. The claim to special knowledge might be taken as knowing all mysteries and having all knowledge (1 Cor. 13:2). Indeed, such seems to be the case, for John’s aorist imperative is `stop believing every spirit’ ” (Gill, Hereby We Know, p. 96).

One Simple Test

“Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God.”

This simple test would especially :pply to the Gnostics of John’s day as well as to other similar religious beliefs that denied the incarnation. The test involved a confession of belief that Jesus had come in the flesh. The false teachers under consideration did not believe that He had come in the flesh, and , therefore, denied it as a fact. This is what identified them as false prophets and their teaching as coming not from the Spirit of God, but from false spirits. Testimony that Jesus had come in the flesh was made by the Holy Spirit through inspired men. The Spirit of God alone could assuredly make this proclamation which identified the Spirit as being from God.

We need to understand that John is not saying that all that is necessary to please God is to believe that Jesus came in the flesh. Paul wrote that those who teach “contrary to the doctrine which ye learned, . . . serve not our Lord Christ” (Ram. 16:17, 18). The doctrine they had learned was all the teaching received by Paul from the Spirit. To this John adds, “Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son” (2 Jn. 9). One must abide in the teaching of Christ. This involves obedience and commandment keeping.

Believing That Jesus Has Come in the Flesh

There is much involved in the matter of believing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Notice a few related facts: (1) He came as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah. He came to establish a kingdom. The kingdom was established and cannot be shaken or destroyed (Matt. 16:18; Dan. 2:44; Heb. 12:28). (2) He was born of a virgin, being “conceived in her” by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20-23). He lived in a fleshly body, a fact denied by some who are identified by John and called false prophets. (3) He worked signs and miracles among the people and revealed to his apostles truth to be taught in the kingdom (Jn. 20:30, 31; Acts 1:2). (4) He has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18-20). (5) His New Testament is now in force and all religious truth which regulates our salvation is therein contained (Heb. 9:16, 17; Jn. 17:20, 21; Eph. 3:1-3). (6) His word shall judge us (Jn. 12:48). (7) By His word we are to judge all teachers and teaching (Ram. 16:17). If Jesus Christ has come in the flesh all of this, and much more, is true.

Further Evidence Given (5,6)

“They are of the world: therefore speak they as of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he who is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” Paul says about the same thing in the following words: “Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Ram. 6:16). The false prophets did not speak the things revealed by the Holy Spirit. They, therefore, were of the world. Those who reject the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the apostles and, instead of hearing the New Testament, hear and obey the false prophets, are also of the world. The Spirit of truth is known by hearing the apostles; the spirit of error by hearing false teachers.

QUESTIONS

1. How did the apostles know that Jesus was continuing with them? Discuss and explain.
2. Why would John warn man not to believe every spirit?
3. Discuss present-day attitudes toward the charge “prove the spirits.”
4. Relate some lessons we can learn from Soul of Tarsus on the subject of proving the spirits. Can you recall other Bible examples?
5. List and discuss other things the new Testament tells us to prove.

1. What opportunities in John’s day might false teachers use to teach their doctrines? Compare this to our day.
2. What was one test John gave to be used in trying the spirits? Why was there such a need for this test in John’s day?
3. Are all teachers who believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh teaching the truth on other subjects?
4. Make a list of facts, commands, and promises that must be accepted if one truly believes that Jesus Christ came in the flesh?
5. Are we to prove teachers today? If so, how do we go about the task?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 14, pp. 211-213
April 2, 1981

By Johnny Stringer

Men generally fail to recognize the seriousness and the deep significance of sin. Some regard sin so lightly that they believe people can persist in sin and still be counted righteous in God’s sight. Some who teach the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” have made very strong public assertions that a Christian’s sins do not affect his soul, that once one is saved it matters not what sins he commits or how long and impenitently he persists in his sins, he cannot be lost. John corrects this erroneous concept in 1 John 3:4-10.

This is the first of three articles on this very powerful passage. In this article, we shall examine verses 4-5, in which John (1) defines sin (v. 4) and (2) shows that the relationship of Christ to sin is such as to preclude our claiming to be followers of Christ while persisting in sin (v. 5). Our second article will discuss verses 6-7, in which John establishes the necessity of not practicing sin. The third and last of this series will deal with verses 8-10, in which John teaches that whether or not one practices sin determines whether he is a child of God or a child of the devil. Having read this paragraph, you now have the four main points of one preacher’s expository sermon on this passage.

Definition of Sin (v. 4)

John defines sin as transgression of God’s law. It is in considering this definition that we are impressed with the terrible seriousness of sin. It manifests a lack of respect for God; hence, it is of the utmost gravity. When we are inclined to regard sin lightly, to minimize it or shrug it off, let us consider the fact that when one sins he is snubbing his nose at the Creator; he is defiantly shaking his little fist in the face of the Almighty; he is rebelling against the One to Whom he owes his very existence. Oh, let us contemplate deeply the seriousness of our actions!

It is for this reason that all sins should be taken seriously, even those which men would call little sins. A “white” lie is a violation of God’s law, just as a “black” lie is; consequently, it manifests a lack of respect for God, just as a black lie does. This makes it a serious thing. Stealing a dime violates God’s law just as stealing a thousand dollars does. The amount is not the thing that makes stealing serious; the thing that makes it serious is that it is done in rebellion against God.

John’s definition of sin also helps us to understand David’s statement in Psalm 51:4 following his sin involving Bathsheba. He said that his sin had been against God and God only. Some find this puzzling in view of the fact that he had wronged Bathsheba and her husband. Did he not sin against them? Only in a secondary sense. Basically and primarily, all sin is against God, for it is His law that is violated. If I steal from you, my sin is still basically against God, not you; for it is not your law I violate, but God’s. Only in a secondary sense can it be said that we sin against other humans.

In his definition of sin, John shows what it is that makes anything wrong. It is wrong because it is not in accordance with God’s law. If there were no God, there would be no basis for condemning anything as wrong. Humans might disagree- about what is right and what is wrong. If there were no Supreme Being to determine right and wrong, what man would have the right to make the determination? For this reason, the atheist who moralizes is in a predicament. If he says that it is wrong to murder innocent people, ask him why it is wrong; ask him who says so. If there were no God to make the determination, I would have as much right to say that murdering innocent people is good as someone else would to say it is evil.

Finally, it is obvious from this definition that we are now under law. Some teach that since we are under grace, we are not under law. However, if there were not any law for us to transgress, then we could not sin, for sin is transgression of law. In fact, if there were no law, and hence no sin, then we would need no grace. We should be thankful that we do have more than mere law; we have grace by which we can conditionally be forgiven of our violations of law. Hence, we do not depend upon perfect law-keeping, sinless living, to be justified. Nevertheless, we have a law to which we are amenable. The possibility of forgiveness brings us to the next point of our study.

Christ’s Relationship to Sin (v. 5)

All of our Lord’s actions with regard to sin have been in opposition to it. Therefore, we cannot persist in the practice of sin and be His followers. In the first place, Christ came to take away sin. How can anyone claim devotion to Christ, yet persist in practicing the very thing that Christ came to take away? Through His death on the cross He provided that our sins might be removed, forgiven (Matt. 26:28). How thankful we should be that as serious as our sins are, as offensive and repulsive to God as they are, they can still be forgiven. But the forgiveness provided by Christ is conditional (Heb. 5:9). There are conditions which the aliens must meet (Acts 2:38) and conditions which the citizen of the kingdom must meet (Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:9). Since these conditions include repentance, one surely cannot persist in any sin and be forgiven.

The second thing that John notes regarding Christ’s relationship to sin is that “in him is no sin.” He lived a perfectly sinless life. While He was tempted as all men are, He continually disdained all that was sinful (Heb. 4:15). How, then, can anyone who persists in sinfulness claim to be a follower of Christ, a Christian?

QUESTIONS

1. What is sin?
2. Why is it a serious thing to tell a “white” lie or to steal a very small amount?
3. Against whom did David say he had sinned?
4. If there where no God, who would have the right to determine what is right and what is wrong?
5. Since we are under grace, we are not subject to God’s law. True or False.
6. What two things did John note regarding Christ’s relationship to sin?

Guardian of Truth XXV: 14, pp. 210-211
April 2, 1981